Is your performance on Step 1 really indicative of how you'll be as a physician?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Knicks

Full Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2007
Messages
1,400
Reaction score
8
Considering that "we're not gonna be using a lot of this information" (esp. the tiny annoying details), is it a fair test?

I mean, yes there has to be a standard test to 'weed out' all the applicants for the limited number of spots, but ultimately, is it a fair and 'practical' test?


(Either way, we're gonna go through with it, but I was just wondering).
 
Considering that "we're not gonna be using a lot of this information" (esp. the tiny annoying details), is it a fair test?

I mean, yes there has to be a standard test to 'weed out' all the applicants for the limited number of spots, but ultimately, is it a fair and 'practical' test?


(Either way, we're gonna go through with it, but I was just wondering).

No. That's one of the reason's it's being combined with Step 2 in the future, to make it more about practical stuff... just not for us.
 
The steps were never really meant to be metrics for competency aside from the pass and fail designations. Studying for these tests won't make us better physicians and I'm sure that most of us are working hard enough aside from the USMLE that we will be fully competent. After all the pass rate for US med students is very high.

In the end, the reason why Step 1 is so important for residency PDs is that its the only objective measure available. I've been told by a PD that they think Step 1 performance is correlated to the ability to pass his specialty's boards. FWIW, its essentially the same logic used to justify using the MCAT to predict USMLE scores.
 
The steps were never really meant to be metrics for competency aside from the pass and fail designations. Studying for these tests won't make us better physicians and I'm sure that most of us are working hard enough aside from the USMLE that we will be fully competent. After all the pass rate for US med students is very high.

In the end, the reason why Step 1 is so important for residency PDs is that its the only objective measure available. I've been told by a PD that they think Step 1 performance is correlated to the ability to pass his specialty's boards. FWIW, its essentially the same logic used to justify using the MCAT to predict USMLE scores.
What do you mean?


Yes, yes it is.
Judging from the lack of elaboration in that response, I'll assume it was [poorly executed] sarcasm.
 
yes, no doubt about it. it is a test of knowledge, not competence or aptitude. so the more you know, or the more you accumulate in a certain prep period, the more you will know (or accumulate) during your residency and fellowship training. so you will make a great doctor (assuming you're not a jackass).
 
I'm not sure "yes/no" is the correct way to go about this.

Perhaps a better way to ask the question is TO WHAT EXTENT is a high Step 1 score indicative of being a "good physician." (whatever good physician means).
 
Judging from the lack of elaboration in that response, I'll assume it was [poorly executed] sarcasm.

Dude, if you ask dumb questions, you get dumb answers. That's all I have to say about this thread.
 
Considering that "we're not gonna be using a lot of this information" (esp. the tiny annoying details), is it a fair test?

I mean, yes there has to be a standard test to 'weed out' all the applicants for the limited number of spots, but ultimately, is it a fair and 'practical' test?


(Either way, we're gonna go through with it, but I was just wondering).

Will someone who gets a 240 necessarily be a better doctor than someone who gets a 200? No.

That said, remember that the original intent of the exam was to simply be a "pass or not" kind of test; maybe it's elitist but if I were picking a doctor to take care of my family I would absolutely want them to have displayed the academic acumen, relevant or not, to have passed this test.
 
"I were picking a doctor to take care of my family I would absolutely want them to have displayed the academic acumen, relevant or not, to have passed this test."

how else would a Physician get a License to practice Medicine without passing the required requirements for that particular state ?
 
"I were picking a doctor to take care of my family I would absolutely want them to have displayed the academic acumen, relevant or not, to have passed this test."

how else would a Physician get a License to practice Medicine without passing the required requirements for that particular state ?

That is exactly my point; I think that the USMLE steps, in their original purpose (P/NP), were a good idea. The notion of a whole generation of doctors memorizing eponyms for different nodules is less noble.
 
Dude, if you ask dumb questions, you get dumb answers. That's all I have to say about this thread.
"Dude", if that's the way you react to a thread on the internet, you've already proven to everyone how YOU will be as a physician.

That is exactly my point; I think that the USMLE steps, in their original purpose (P/NP), were a good idea. The notion of a whole generation of doctors memorizing eponyms for different nodules is less noble.
Well, unfortunately that's what the test is basically producing.....
 
I hate to post in this thread, but for what it's worth there have been several published studies in various specialties examining the correlation between Step I scores (and other metrics for resident selection) and later measures of resident performance. People have found that Step I predicts performance on other written tests well, but not more subjective assessments of clinical performance.

So, it may not be a good indicator but no one has found a better one, so here we are.
 
The steps were never really meant to be metrics for competency aside from the pass and fail designations.
Uh, you just contradicted yourself there.

Studying for these tests won't make us better physicians and I'm sure that most of us are working hard enough aside from the USMLE that we will be fully competent. After all the pass rate for US med students is very high.
Wait until you hit the internal medicine floors. You get pimped on a ton of information that you studied for boards. Attendings expect you to have mastered EVERYTHING from your basic science years.

In the end, the reason why Step 1 is so important for residency PDs is that its the only objective measure available. I've been told by a PD that they think Step 1 performance is correlated to the ability to pass his specialty's boards. FWIW, its essentially the same logic used to justify using the MCAT to predict USMLE scores.
Technically speaking, the MCAT is supposed to predict how well you'll do in medical school.
 
Is your performance on Step 1 really indicative of how you'll be as a physician?

The best people to answer this question are not medical students; rather, residents and PD's. I would be curious to find out if MDs who become Chief Residents are more likely to have the highest step 1 scores compared to their peers (assuming of course that competent residents with strong leadership skills are those selected to be Chief Residents)
 
^^ True.

btw, I'd like to thank all those who actually made constructive posts in this thread that are conducive to actually carrying out a discussion. 🙂
 
The best people to answer this question are not medical students; rather, residents and PD's. I would be curious to find out if MDs who become Chief Residents are more likely to have the highest step 1 scores compared to their peers (assuming of course that competent residents with strong leadership skills are those selected to be Chief Residents)

I assume you mean internal medicine chiefs (since other chiefs are simply final year residents).

I think it'd be the other way around. People take on a chief resident year because they feel the need to pad their resume (presumably for a competitive fellowship). They certainly don't do it for the money. You'd make 4-5x more working as a hospitalist.
 
I assume you mean internal medicine chiefs (since other chiefs are simply final year residents).

I think it'd be the other way around. People take on a chief resident year because they feel the need to pad their resume (presumably for a competitive fellowship). They certainly don't do it for the money. You'd make 4-5x more working as a hospitalist.

My point is that one might get a better idea as to how well a step score has translated to clinical competance by asking people who evaluated and worked with residents rather than by asking medical students.
 
My point is that one might get a better idea as to how well a step score has translated to clinical competance by asking people who evaluated and worked with residents rather than by asking medical students.
First, re-read your last post. Most residents will tell you that the USMLE means relatively little towards your clinical competency. But they'll tell you the same about pretty much all standardized tests, including their specialty boards. Btw, chief residents do not evaluate other residents. That isn't their job. Thats what program directors are for. Based upon what I've heard from talking with several PD's, the most important attribute of a good physician is willingness to do hard work. Doctors that make mistakes are typically those that try to cut corners at inappropriate times.

I would be curious to find out if MDs who become Chief Residents are more likely to have the highest step 1 scores compared to their peers (assuming of course that competent residents with strong leadership skills are those selected to be Chief Residents)
Chief residents are NOT more likely to have the highest step 1 scores compared to their peers. That was my point.
 
the USMLEs (especially step 2ck) are based on common diseases, diagnosis & treatment, and they do follow guidelines(dx,tx). It is up to the student to either memorize words or understand concepts both of which will get good scores.

(except for the parts of straight memorization) these tests test = how much time you spent on it + memorization capability + ability of understanding concepts.

Alot of the knowledge needed for 2CK will/can be used during residency, depending on how much "doctor" you get to play and how much you get to fill out papers, decipher others' handwriting, talk to families(also need some med knowledge here), convince nurses to take a BP in between their lunch breaks, or call other "colleague" Residents and get their busy selves to make a consult.
 
I would feel very nervous about any resident who failed Steps I or II except for extreme circumstances.


It says to me that this person lacks certain analytical skills and basic understanding of important medical concepts.


The USMLE to its credit makes an attempt to create a good test- much better than most of my first two year medical school exams. It wants you above all to see connections where they exist like the MEN syndromes, Von Hippel Landau and renal cell carcinoma, etc. etc.....

So it is not testing minutiae per se, but rather the future physician's ability to see connections. My own experience is that it is an extemely well and responsibly written exam. I don't think its prime goal is to try to trick you like stupid unstandardized exams.
 
That's why.
Well, that was due to immature people posting pretentious things.....

as you can see, there actually WAS and IS decent discussion going on in this thread before and after a couple of posters posted irrelevant comments, and also before you posted:

I hate to post in this thread,..........

.... so yeah, let's continue the mature and on-topic discussions (which was my intentions when I first created this thread).

Good day to you..... 🙄
 
Last edited:
Well, that was due to immature people posting pretentious things...
🙄

If you want good and mature discussion, don't tell people they will be crappy physicians because you didn't like what they said ("Burnett's Law") and don't roll your eyes at them. That's a gesture of contempt. Open displays of contempt are not usually found in civil, mature discussions.

That being said:

A good summary of the evidence is here:
http://www.anesthesia-analgesia.org/cgi/content/full/100/2/502
I'll quote from the intro and if you want to see the references just go to the link above since it's freely available.
Wood et al. (1) found that cognitive indicators, such as National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) scores, correlated well with subsequent cognitive measures of performance but correlated negatively with manual dexterity, interpersonal skills, and confidence. George et al. (2) considered class rank, grades in four major clinical clerkships, NBME part 1 scores, Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership, and numerical ranking by the selection committee and found that only the last criterion correlated with subsequent house staff performance. Crane and Ferraro (3) determined that emergency medicine rotation grade, interview, clinical grades, and recommendations were better indicators of future performance than United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) results. Despite the poor correlation between cognitive indicators and subsequent performance, Clark et al. (4) found that an NBME part 1 score of over 500, class rank in the top 40%, and membership in AOA honor society correlated with an increased rate of acceptance in orthopedic residency programs. Warrick and Crumrine (5) determined that although no significant correlations were found among resident in training examination (ITE) scores and undergraduate grade point averages (GPA), resident ages, or parents’ level of education, interview scores, and composite residency GPA had a strong positive relationship. Bell et al. (6) concluded that although USMLE scores correlated positively with ITE scores, they did not correlate with subsequent faculty evaluations of resident performance.
 
Considering that "we're not gonna be using a lot of this information" (esp. the tiny annoying details), is it a fair test?

I mean, yes there has to be a standard test to 'weed out' all the applicants for the limited number of spots, but ultimately, is it a fair and 'practical' test?


(Either way, we're gonna go through with it, but I was just wondering).

The step is a test you have to pass to become licensed. Without it, you cannot be a physician, so by definition it is correlated to your physician career. It is fair in that it tests the same material everyone in a US allo med school program covers, and practical in the sense that this is good foundation on which to build clinical skills. Some questions are better written than others, some focus on minutiae you won't ever have to know, while other things are things most physicians ought to know. But I don't know that I would really call it a weed out test -- over 90% of US allo people pass their first time, and those that don't generally pass eventually. It just ensures a certain level of competency in the basic science subjects before you can move on to the next level. That the actual scores are used by residency directors is an area of controversy at NBME, as the test was apparently never intended to provide such a yardstick. So as it stands now, the test will play a big role in deciding what kind of doctor you can become. It will separate out the dermatologists from the family medicine types. But won't suggest you will be particularly good as a physician in whichever specialty you get into, just that you will get into it.

Much like the MCAT became meaningless once you got into med school, once you get into a residency, Step 1 and 2 have no bearing any more. We are talking important hurdles to get past. Can you be a lousy physician with a great Step 1 score? Absolutely. Can you be a great physician with a lousy Step 1 score? Absolutely. Is the average dermatologist a better "doctor" than the average pediatrician? That depends a lot on how you define doctor, but I'd say I've probably seen an equivalent number of really good and really bad physicians in both the competitive and noncompetitive fields. Because at some level the non-science-related interaction with people is more important in a personal service industry such as medicine, and these tests really only test the science aspects. If you know everything there is to know, but all your patients hate and distrust you, you cannot be called a good doctor. If you have a brilliant mind, but are lousy with your hands, you aren't going to be seen as particularly good procedurally. And so on.
 
If you want good and mature discussion, don't tell people they will be crappy physicians because you didn't like what they said ("Burnett's Law") and don't roll your eyes at them. That's a gesture of contempt. Open displays of contempt are not usually found in civil, mature discussions.

No, no contempt. Oh and, instead of soley pointing out my responses to the provocative posts, how about you critisize those initial provocative posts? (rhetorical question for you to think about).

And don't lecture me about maturity. 🙂


Anyway, Law2Doc, thanks for the constructive input. Great post.

EDIT: Law2Doc, I have a question though. Basically, it's still my original question: is it fair, though? What if someone wants to go into a certain field of medicine/doctor, and if this person DID get into that residency, he/she WOULD be a great doctor. But what if this person just happens to be a poor test-taker and couldn't answer/regurgitate the "useless minutiae" frequently asked on the step 1? Is that fair to this person? Like I mentioned in this hypothetical scenario, what if this person would be a great doctor (whatever 'great' means) in that particular field, but because of some exam, this person "can't"/isn't allowed to enter that residency and become that great doctor in that field that he otherwise WOULD BE. Is that fair? Ok, the TEST ITSELF may be 'fair', but the fact that it doesn't take into consideration how people would ACTUALLY perform as a doctor in a particular field, and therefore affect their future, doesn't seem fair.

At the end of the day, none of what we say here matters, as we all have to take the test anyway. But it's good to just get away from studying for a little bit and talk.
 
Last edited:
Well, that was due to immature people posting pretentious things.....

as you can see, there actually WAS and IS decent discussion going on in this thread before and after a couple of posters posted irrelevant comments, and also before you posted:

.... so yeah, let's continue the mature and on-topic discussions (which was my intentions when I first created this thread).

Good day to you..... 🙄

The mature 🙄 thing 🙄 to 🙄 do 🙄 would actually be to ignore the people who are making comments that you don't like, rather than whining about how you don't like it. Since this is a public internet forum, people are allowed to post their opinions, whether you like them or not. In addition, it would derail your thread less if you didn't find it necessary to personally reply to each of these comments, which then get a reply, causing two separate discussions and making this thread confusing to read. 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄

EDIT: Law2Doc, I have a question though. Basically, it's still my original question: is it fair, though? What if someone wants to go into a certain field of medicine/doctor, and if this person DID get into that residency, he/she WOULD be a great doctor. But what if this person just happens to be a poor test-taker and couldn't answer/regurgitate the "useless minutiae" frequently asked on the step 1? Is that fair to this person? Like I mentioned in this hypothetical scenario, what if this person would be a great doctor (whatever 'great' means) in that particular field, but because of some exam, this person "can't"/isn't allowed to enter that residency and become that great doctor in that field that he otherwise WOULD BE. Is that fair? Ok, the TEST ITSELF may be 'fair', but the fact that it doesn't take into consideration how people would ACTUALLY perform as a doctor in a particular field, and therefore affect their future, doesn't seem fair.

This is the reason that I made my comment in the first place. Of course it's not FAIR. You obviously KNOW it's not fair, as does anyone with any amount of common sense. So what exactly do you want to discuss? Or do you just want people to agree with you and whine?
 
Much like the MCAT became meaningless once you got into med school, once you get into a residency, Step 1 and 2 have no bearing any more.

Actually, I've been reading in the SDN specialty forums that program directors still look at your Step scores when evaluating a fellowship candidate. It makes sense, since people start applying for medicine fellowships in the middle of PGY-2 year.

Bottom line, Step 1 is the single most important standardized test that will directly influence your medical career.
 
This is the reason that I made my comment in the first place. Of course it's not FAIR. You obviously KNOW it's not fair, as does anyone with any amount of common sense. So what exactly do you want to discuss? Or do you just want people to agree with you and whine?
🙄 I give up.....


ANYway, I want to thank Keg, Monica Lewinsky, lankysudanese, DOCTORSAIB, R_C_Hutchinson, peter90036, Terpskins99, DrFraud, CorpusSpongiosum, Law2Doc, and g6pddfishnc for ignoring the agitators and being the mature ones and actually constructively contributing to the thread and addressing my question(s).

Thanks. 🙂
 
Last edited:
Top